This August, a public records request asked the city for the ordinance or resolution establishing the planning commission stipend. The city said it found no records. The City Council should end the confusion with one clear rule. Pay residents who serve on the city’s commissions, committees and boards, or keep that service a civic duty for all of them.

Fullerton residents who volunteer to serve on city commissions and committees contribute something essential to local government: a perspective based on public input that city employees and elected officials cannot provide on their own.

They attend meetings, review staff reports, consider proposed projects and policies, hear from residents, and make recommendations that can influence decisions affecting neighborhoods throughout the city. Some assignments may also require members to visit locations, examine conditions and consider how city policies affect people in their daily lives.

Yet Fullerton has an apparent inequity in how it compensates this public service. Planning Commissioners receive $75 per meeting. Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Transportation and Circulation Commission receive no stipend, according to the city’s published commission information.

Why is one commission’s time worth $75 per meeting while the work of other commissioners is worth nothing?

There are two fair approaches: compensate all commissioners for their time and service, or eliminate the Planning Commission stipend and have all commissioners serve under the same rules. What is difficult to justify is maintaining a system in which one group of volunteers is paid while others performing important public work are not.

The city’s Municipal Code, Section 2.11.060, establishes the general rule: commission members serve without compensation, except when otherwise provided by ordinance. It also allows commissioners to be reimbursed for necessary expenses when approved by the City Manager.

The Planning Commission’s $75 payment is listed by the city as a stipend. The city has identified Chapter 2.18.051 as the provision it proposed repealing in 2018 when it considered eliminating the payment. At the September 18, 2018, City Council meeting, the council denied the proposal unanimously. The councilmembers argued that Planning Commissioners devoted considerable time to their assignments. One councilmember also pointed to the time commissioners spent visiting properties and said they did not receive a mileage allowance for those visits. Another described the stipend as an acknowledgment of commissioners’ dedication and service, noting that all commissioners devote significant time to their appointments. The city has not yet provided a clear public explanation of the original authorization for the stipend or why the exception was made for Planning Commissioners.

If time and dedication justify compensation for Planning Commissioners, why do those same considerations not apply to other commissioners?

The Planning Commission does have responsibilities that differ from those of other advisory bodies. Under the Municipal Code, it reviews planning and development matters, makes recommendations on the city’s General Plan and other growth-related issues, and has authority to hear and decide certain land-use applications. Its decisions can directly affect property owners, developers, neighbors and the future shape of Fullerton.

Other commissions also have important responsibilities.

The Parks and Recreation Commission studies parks and recreation concerns, projects and programs and makes policy recommendations. Its work affects public parks, recreation opportunities and the quality of life in neighborhoods throughout the city.

The Transportation and Circulation Commission advises the City Council on public transportation and circulation systems, facilities, plans, policies and programs. Decisions in this area affect street safety, traffic, mobility and how residents move around Fullerton.

Fullerton also has boards and committees that provide specialized public input. If authority justifies pay, these bodies may deserve a closer look.

The Library Board of Trustees has an administrative oversight role for the public library.

The Investment Advisory Committee reviews the city’s investment portfolio and makes recommendations on investment strategy and policy.

The Infrastructure and Natural Resources Advisory Committee advises on infrastructure, energy, natural resources and environmental matters and also serves as a hearing body for utility billing disputes.

The Active Transportation Committee is an advisory body that gives residents a forum on walking, biking, and other non-car travel. The city’s official summary says it reviews policies, plans, and projects that affect active transportation in Fullerton. It tracks progress on the Mobility Element, Bicycle Element, and Bicycle Master Plan.

These bodies do not all have identical powers or responsibilities. Some are established as commissions, others as boards or committees. Some make recommendations; others have specific administrative, hearing or decision-making authority. Their legal powers depend on the ordinances, resolutions and laws that establish them — not simply on the title attached to the body. 

Commissions are generally continuing public bodies with defined responsibilities. Committees may be established to address a narrower subject, provide specialized advice or work on a particular task. But both can provide an important channel for residents to participate in local government. The city itself says it relies on citizen committees and standing boards and commissions for recommendations on major issues, and that citizen participation is invited and encouraged.

Public participation is more than allowing residents a few minutes at the microphone during a City Council meeting. Commissions and boards provide an ongoing opportunity for residents to examine issues in greater depth, ask questions, hear different perspectives and bring community concerns into the policy process before decisions are made. They can help identify problems that might otherwise be overlooked and give residents a meaningful role in shaping the city.

That work deserves respect. It also deserves a consistent compensation policy.

If Fullerton believes commissioners’ time, preparation and public service merit a stipend, then the city should establish a fair policy that applies to all commissioners. If the city believes these positions are volunteer civic service and should remain unpaid, then that standard should apply equally.

The council sets these rules, so its own pay belongs in this discussion. The city’s website lists council pay at $750 per month. Because that amount is monthly, it continues whether meetings are held, canceled or missed.

Base pay is only part of the picture. Citing State Controller data, the column reports that city-paid compensation for full-year councilmembers ranged from $9,337 to $29,403 in 2024, with much of the gap coming from health benefits. However, records the city provided did not appear to match the Controller’s figures, and no one at City Hall explained why.

Regional boards add another layer. The council majority appoints its members to agencies that can pay thousands of dollars a year. Those payments come from regional agencies, and the work may be legitimate. But they flow from appointments the council controls, and residents should be able to see them in one place.

Councilmembers are different from commissioners. Voters elect them; they answer to voters at the ballot box, and they make the city’s final decisions. State ballot rules also let candidates list an elective office they hold, a path appointed commissioners do not have. Those differences can justify higher pay. They do not make the council exempt from explaining it.

The arguments cannot change depending on who benefits. If time and dedication justify paying councilmembers, the council should explain why they do not justify paying commissioners. If low pay can keep working residents from serving, the same concern applies to appointed seats. That concern helped drive the 2023 state law that raised council salary caps. And if the council decides commissioners should serve as a civic duty, it should explain why that principle does not apply to its own salary and benefits, or reduce them.